[Advaita-l] Question on adhyaasa

[Venkatraghavan S]

I meant to say: epistemological rather *than* ontological.

On Tue, 4 Dec 2018, 09:31 Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com wrote:

> Namaste Subbuji
> Thank you. I think the term adhyAsa, when talking of the 'attributes' of
> the Atma being 'adhyasta' on anAtma, is epistemological rather ontological.
>
> That is, it is an adhyAsa of the nature of अन्यस्यान्यधर्मावभासता
> / अतस्मिंस्तद्बुद्धि: , and not तत्त्वान्यत्वाभ्यामनिर्वचनीयं. The former
> requires the prior acceptance of two things (tat and atat), which are only
> possible because of the latter. Both concepts are indicated by the same
> term, adhyAsa, but we have to carefully analyse which is being used where.
>
> Regards,
> Venkatraghavan
>
>
>
> On Tue, 4 Dec 2018, 01:37 V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 5:44 AM Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Namaste,
>>> A side question to consider in relation to anyonyAdhyAsa -
>>>
>>> If in the conception of adhyAsa, the adhyasta is mithyA and adhiShThAna
>>> is satya, the non-self and its attributes can  be superimposed  on the
>>> self, because the latter is real and can be the adhiShThAna for the
>>> adhyAsa. However, anyonyAdhyAsa says that the nature of the self is
>>> superimposed on the non-self too. How can this be true though? How can the
>>> non-self, which is mithyA, be the adhiShThAna for the self's nature, which
>>> is real?
>>>
>>> Therefore, is the term anyonyAdhyAsa not a mutual superimposition, but
>>> merely a confusion of one for the other, brought about by the one
>>> superimposition of the non-self on the self?
>>>
>>
>> Very interesting, though. We see in the very opening sentence of the
>> Adhyasa bhashya that there is an anyonyadhyasa:
>> युष्मदस्मत्प्रत्ययगोचरयोर्विषयविषयिणोस्तमःप्रकाशवद्विरुद्धस्वभावयोरितरेतर
>> भावानुपपत्तौ सिद्धायाम् , तद्धर्माणामपिसुतरामितरेतरभावानुपपत्तिः — इत्यतः
>>  अस्मत्प्रत्ययगोचरे विषयिणि चिदात्मके युष्मत्प्रत्ययगोचरस्य विषयस्य
>> तद्धर्माणां चाध्यासः तद्विपर्ययेणविषयिणस्तद्धर्माणां च विषयेऽध्यासो मि
>> थ्येति भवितुं युक्तम् । तथाप्यन्योन्यस्मिन्नन्योन्यात्मकता
>> मन्योन्यधर्मांश्चाध्यस्येतरेतराविवेकेनअत्यन्तविविक्तयोर्धर्मधर्मिणोः
>> मिथ्याज्ञाननिमित्तः सत्यानृते मिथुनीकृत्य ‘अहमिदम्’ ‘ममेदम्’ इति
>> नैसर्गिकोऽयं लोकव्यवहारः ॥
>>
>> There are two dharmi-s, one the vishayi and the other the vishaya. And
>> there are two dharma-s too, of the vishayi and of the vishaya. So, First
>> there is the dharmi adhyasa of taking the vishaya to be the vishayi and
>> vice versa. And there is their dharma adhyasa too, the vishaya's dharma-s
>> are adhyasta on the vishayi and the vishayi's dharma-s are adhyasta on the
>> vishaya.
>>
>> Now, for your question:   //However, anyonyAdhyAsa says that the nature
>> of the self is superimposed on the non-self too. How can this be true
>> though? How can the non-self, which is mithyA, be the adhiShThAna for the
>> self's nature, which is real? // the answer is:
>>
>> It is not that the //If in the conception of adhyAsa, the adhyasta is
>> mithyA and adhiShThAna is satya//  That is, it is not that the adhyasta is
>> mithya per se; it is mithya only in a locus that is not appropriate. Thus,
>> the snake in a zoo or park is not mithya; only a snake apprehended in the
>> locus rope is mithya. So too, the nature of the Self namely existence,
>> consciousness, is not mithya but only when they are experienced in the
>> wrong locus the not-self that they are mithya. Thus, the idea of
>> anyonyadhyasa is error-free seen this way.
>>
>> Also, the existence and consciousness are by default everywhere. As
>> taught in the BGB 2.16, in 'the pot is, the cloth is..', the is-ness, the
>> dharma of the Atman/Brahman never undergoes vyabhichara, that is, they
>> never become non-existent. But the pot, cloth, etc. in that statement is
>> vyabhicchari, that is, in pot the cloth is absent and vice versa. Extending
>> this, the anatma and its dharmas are vyabhichari and mithya and the Atma
>> and its dharmas are avyabhichari and satyam. This is the essence of the BGB
>> 2.16.
>>
>> regards
>> subbu
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Venkatraghavan
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>